quote who=Javier Gostling
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 10:56:06AM -0500, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
Now, if your NAS is on the other end of a fast fiber connection a couple
of
miles down the road ;)
Picture this scenario:
- One storage box onsite
- One identical storage box offsite over fast
AragonX mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on Thursday, September 18, 2003 8:00 AM said:
Doesn't the fast fiber connection cost on a monthly basis? So you go
from a fixed cost solution to a monthly cost. It might be cost
effective to start but for how long will that remain true?
Wait... Doesn't
At 11:00 9/18/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Doesn't the fast fiber connection cost on a monthly basis? So you go from
a fixed cost solution to a monthly cost. It might be cost effective to
start but for how long will that remain true?
Not always. You're assuming your market, your carriers, your
At 09:40 9/19/2003 -0700, you wrote:
AragonX mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on Thursday, September 18, 2003 8:00 AM said:
Doesn't the fast fiber connection cost on a monthly basis? So you go
from a fixed cost solution to a monthly cost. It might be cost
effective to start but for how long will
quote who=Rodolfo J. Paiz
At 11:00 9/18/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Doesn't the fast fiber connection cost on a monthly basis? So you go
from
a fixed cost solution to a monthly cost. It might be cost effective to
start but for how long will that remain true?
Not always. You're assuming your
quote who=Javier Gostling
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 10:56:06AM -0500, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
Now, if your NAS is on the other end of a fast fiber connection a couple
of
miles down the road ;)
Picture this scenario:
- One storage box onsite
- One identical storage box offsite over fast
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 11:25:36PM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
At 15:21 9/11/2003 +0200, you wrote:
Do you folks have prefered backup utils and methods?
ie tar or cpio, perhaps something else?
Is there a beter way to backup, instead of tape perhaps to another
Harddrive?
Tape is old,
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 11:25:36PM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
The only catch is my wife's computer, since I do not have rsync for Windows
2000. I need a way to use Putty (more likely, pscp) to do rsync's job, but
I have not figured that out yet.
What about using cygwin to run rsync and
At 06:48 9/17/2003 -0500, you wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 11:25:36PM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
Tape is old, linear, slow, EXPENSIVE, and it breaks. Nasty stuff, no
one should use it anymore really. You want size, get a 160GB for $100
($0.625/GB), and by the way you'll get way more speed
At 10:24 9/17/2003 -0400, you wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 11:25:36PM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
The only catch is my wife's computer, since I do not have rsync for
Windows
2000. I need a way to use Putty (more likely, pscp) to do rsync's job, but
I have not figured that out yet.
What
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 10:24:50AM -0400, Javier Gostling wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 11:25:36PM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
The only catch is my wife's computer, since I do not have rsync for Windows
2000. I need a way to use Putty (more likely, pscp) to do rsync's job, but
I have
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 08:56:02AM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
I recently set up a NAS box for a customer, using a Promise chassis
and 15 250GB drives, which resulted in 3.25TB real useful space and
cost a total of $6,000 (overall cost per GB: $1.85).
You make a good argument that disks are
On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 10:31, Kent Borg wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 08:56:02AM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
I recently set up a NAS box for a customer, using a Promise chassis
and 15 250GB drives, which resulted in 3.25TB real useful space and
cost a total of $6,000 (overall cost per GB:
I recently set up a NAS box for a customer, using a Promise chassis and 15
250GB drives, which resulted in 3.25TB real useful space and cost a total
of $6,000 (overall cost per GB: $1.85). These numbers include a hot spare
drive and the parity drive, so only 13 drives are useful and the box
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 08:56:56AM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
At 10:24 9/17/2003 -0400, you wrote:
What about using cygwin to run rsync and openssh on the Windows machine?
A little heavy, don't you think? That's a lot of stuff to run just for
rsync; I like Ed's idea of smbmount better.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 10:56:06AM -0500, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
Now, if your NAS is on the other end of a fast fiber connection a couple of
miles down the road ;)
Picture this scenario:
- One storage box onsite
- One identical storage box offsite over fast fiber connection
- Storage
At 11:31 9/17/2003 -0400, you wrote:
But in your details you miss at least two
key reasons for making backups:
1. They can be kept off-site and so protect against a generalized
site failure (earthquake, hurricane, fire, flood, roof collapse
under heavy snow, etc.)
True, and a point of
At 10:56 9/17/2003 -0500, you wrote:
This is true, but there is one problem in the disaster recovery universe
that it does not resolve: offsite storage. If your backups are routinely
kept in the same place as your servers, and you have a catastrophic event,
you will have lost your data forever.
At 12:08 9/17/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Picture this scenario:
- One storage box onsite
- One identical storage box offsite over fast fiber connection
- Storage boxes provide storage space over network block device
- One onsite box mounting both storage boxes' nbd devices in raid1 and
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 10:14:52AM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
- One onsite box mounting both storage boxes' nbd devices in raid1 and
receiving/performing backups
Don't like it. If users can access the backup box, or if (as per your last
point) the NAS-es (how the hell do you pluralize
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 10:09:55AM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
As you've correctly pointed out elsewhere, this is part of the
backup _strategy_ whereas the argument is about _media_. I did point
out initially that time travel is important in a backup strategy and
suggested a way to do it.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 12:49:58PM -0400, Javier Gostling wrote:
If you backup to another building, you are still not protected
against some city-wide disasters such as a nuclear bomb (ok. that's
stretching it a little too far, but it states the point).
You don't need to be so exotic to find
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 10:14:52AM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
Don't like it. If users can access the backup box, or if (as per your last
point) the NAS-es (how the hell do you pluralize NAS, anyway?)
NAS is short for Network Attached Storage. So NAS-es would be Network
Attached Storages
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 10:12:14AM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
At 10:56 9/17/2003 -0500, you wrote:
This is true, but there is one problem in the disaster recovery universe
that it does not resolve: offsite storage. If your backups are routinely
kept in the same place as your servers, and
At 12:53 9/17/2003 -0500, you wrote:
I'll step back in here since people seem to want to slam tape.
I'll be more precise: I design, run, and manage systems in home, SOHO, or
SMB environments. 3.25TB is still huge, and most entities with which I do
business or with which I am acquainted haven't
NAS is short for Network Attached Storage. So NAS-es
would
be Network
Attached Storages which doesn't sound right :-). How
about
NAS arrays
or NAS appliances or NAS subsystems?
--
Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador
At 13:03 9/17/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Ah, yes you did, indeed. I had missed that that excellent post was by
you. (A reaction to it: Most instances of people saying to be
secure, uninstall everything, make the box unusable make me scoff,
but your description of a very limited backup box is
I'll step back in here since people seem to want to slam
tape. I happen
to manage systems in a medium-size enterprise. One
server alone has
3.5TB of storage. For that server, we take weekly full
backups and plan
to keep (most systems are already there but this one
isn't
yet)
How long does it take to do a backup of the 3.5TB storage? How long
does it take to get a file out of the backup? How long to do a
restore? This is different from home network territory.
More questions: How much data changes from one backup to the next? Is
there room for incremental backups,
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 12:27:57PM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
Any disaster that hits the main server in Texas, the SparcStation in
Guatemala, my P100 at home, _and_ the Dutchman has earned my data and is
welcome to have it for lunch! Granted, having only 10GB to backup
eliminates all the
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 02:48:10PM -0400, Kent Borg wrote:
How long does it take to do a backup of the 3.5TB storage? How long
does it take to get a file out of the backup? How long to do a
restore? This is different from home network territory.
You're trying to make me cuss again aren't
At 15:21 9/11/2003 +0200, you wrote:
Do you folks have prefered backup utils and methods?
ie tar or cpio, perhaps something else?
Is there a beter way to backup, instead of tape perhaps to another
Harddrive?
Tape is old, linear, slow, EXPENSIVE, and it breaks. Nasty stuff, no one
should use it
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 01:55:47PM -0700, Jack Bowling wrote:
I am doing backups with a similar hard links-based technique and I
have a question: How can I tell how much space one of my backups
takes? I can't do a du one_of_several_backups -s because the hard
links make all the files real
Kent Borg wrote:
Let me give and example. Let's say I have:
- initial backup
- incremental backup 1
- incremental backup 2
- incremental backup 3
- incremental backup 4
These backups share common files via hard links. How much space does
backup 2 take? Or, put another way, how much space
]
Subject: RE: Prefered backup method?
Jason,
Thank you and apologies, I should have been more creative/investigative.
I have both books already (older versions).
I'll follow up on the link.
I was hoping for gems of wisdom not usually documented :)
Regards
Denham
-Original Message-
From
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 08:23:39AM -0700, Jack Bowling wrote:
I think backup methods are determined by your level of paranoia. For
myself, I use a dedicated backup hard drive and rsnapshot
http://rsnapshot.sourceforge.net for doing the grunt work.
I am doing backups with a similar hard
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 11:35:41AM -0400, Kent Borg wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 08:23:39AM -0700, Jack Bowling wrote:
I think backup methods are determined by your level of paranoia. For
myself, I use a dedicated backup hard drive and rsnapshot
http://rsnapshot.sourceforge.net for doing
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 09:21, Denham Eva wrote:
Hello
Just wondering
Do you folks have prefered backup utils and methods?
ie tar or cpio, perhaps something else?
Is there a beter way to backup, instead of tape perhaps to another
Harddrive?
Just a thought that occured to me, I would
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 4:00 PM
To: Red Hat Mailing List
Subject: Re: Prefered backup method?
Hi Denham. Please search the archives, Google, read. There
are tons of
good documentation on this. How you do it depends on your
own personal
requirements. If I might, some
** Reply to message from Denham Eva [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 11 Sep 2003
15:21:38 +0200
Hello
Just wondering
Do you folks have prefered backup utils and methods?
ie tar or cpio, perhaps something else?
Is there a beter way to backup, instead of tape perhaps to another
Harddrive?
Thanks Jack,
I'll look into this one.
Regards
Denham
-Original Message-
From: Jack Bowling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 5:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Prefered backup method?
I think backup methods are determined by your level
Jack Byers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just wondering
Do you folks have prefered backup utils and methods?
ie tar or cpio, perhaps something else?
Is there a beter way to backup, instead of tape perhaps to another
Harddrive?
Just a thought that occured to me, I would like to see if my backup
42 matches
Mail list logo
